Re: Just a note on SoL's

Posted by lawguy (68.119.155.69) on March 08, 2003 at 13:29:46:

In Reply to: Re: Just a note on SoL's posted by Why Chat on March 07, 2003 at 16:55:20:

First, that case is rather meaningless. It is a California Appellate decision, only binding in California, end even then only to a limited degree. I give you a 7th Circuit decision, and you respond with a Cal App decision. Nice. Second, with regards to jurisdiction, it simply applied the standard "minimum contacts" test as the US Supreme Court defined it. Once again, you have put something out there that has nothing to do with any of this.

You also seem to have a problem discerning the difference between jurisdiction and venue, but I'm not going to bother you with this. I'm sure that what you think is right is what is right.

But this is the kicker:

"It is obvious that the SOL Statutes of the jurisdiction a case is brought in would apply."

No No No

That is exactly what I am telling you IS NOT NECCESSARILY THE CASE.

I'm not even going to bother trying to explain it or prove it to you again, as you are so full of yourself that you will disregard whatever proof I offer.

All I can say is look up some "borrowing" statutes and see what it is I'm telling you. Or ask an attorney, which apparently you are not.

Actually, I'll give you a couple of them:

VA 8.01-247
WV 55-2A-2
PA 42 Sec. 5521
OK 12 Sec. 104

All I have been trying to do is point out that these borrowing statutes exist. But you explode, insult me, and accuse me of being something other than I am. Apparently you can't stand anybody adding anything otuside of your own limited realm of knowledge. You really should seek some professional help, because you exhibit classic signs of severe narcissism.

Or maybe your just an ass.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup